12.  The applicant was born in 1926 and currently lives in Rome, Italy.
13.  In 1953 the applicant, together with her husband, acquired a specially protected tenancy (stanarsko pravo) of a flat in Zadar. After her husband’s death in 1989 the applicant became the sole holder of the specially protected tenancy.
14.  On 19 June 1991 the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act came into force. It regulated the sale of publicly owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy.
15.  On 26 July 1991 the applicant went to visit her daughter who lived in Rome. She intended to stay with her daughter for the summer. The applicant locked the flat in Zadar and left all her furniture and personal belongings in it. She asked a neighbour to pay the bills in her absence and to take care of the flat.
16.  However, by the end of August 1991 armed conflict had escalated in Dalmatia, resulting in severe travel difficulties in that area, including the town of Zadar. From 15 September 1991, the town of Zadar was exposed to constant shelling and the supply of electricity and water was disrupted for over a hundred days.
17.  The applicant submitted that in October 1991 the Croatian authorities had stopped paying her war widow’s pension and that the payments had resumed in April 1994. The Government submitted that the applicant’s pension had been paid by the Yugoslav Military Pension Fund in Belgrade rather than the Croatian Pension Fund and that it was the Belgrade authorities which had stopped paying the pension in December 1991.
18.  According to the applicant, she also lost the right to medical insurance. The Government maintained that her medical insurance had never been stopped or interrupted.
19.  Given these circumstances, the applicant decided to remain in Rome.
20.  In November 1991 a certain M.F., with his wife and two children, broke into and occupied the applicant’s flat in Zadar. The applicant claimed that M.F. had been assisted by an official of the municipality who had provided him with a list of empty flats in Zadar, including hers.
21.  On 12 February 1992 the Zadar Municipality (Općina Zadar) brought a civil action against the applicant before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) for termination of her specially protected tenancy on the ground that she had been absent from the flat for more than six months without justified reason, contrary to section 99 of the Housing Act.
22.  In her submissions to the domestic court, the applicant explained that she had been forced to stay with her daughter in Rome from July 1991 until May 1992. She had not been able to return to Zadar since she had no means of subsistence and no medical insurance and was in poor health. Furthermore, during her stay in Rome she had learned from her neighbour that M.F. had broken into her flat with his family. When she had enquired about her flat and her possessions in it, M.F. had threatened her over the telephone.
23.  On 9 October 1992 the Zadar Municipal Court terminated the applicant’s specially protected tenancy. The court found that the applicant had left Zadar on 26 July 1991 and had not returned until 15 May 1992. It stated that during the relevant period the citizens of Zadar had not been ordered to evacuate the town on account of the escalation of the armed conflict and that each citizen had had the choice to leave the town or to stay. On that basis the court found that the war in Croatia could not justify the applicant’s absence.
24.  The court did not accept the applicant’s explanation that she had fallen ill during her stay in Rome and had been unable to travel. It was established that she had suffered from spinal arthrosis and diffuse osteoporosis for a long time. However, this had not affected her ability to travel. Even though her left shoulder had been dislocated on 25 March 1992, she had been able to travel following the immobilisation of the injured joint. Furthermore, by 25 March 1992 she had already been absent from the flat for more than six months.
25.  The applicant’s further explanation that she had stopped receiving her pension in October 1991 and thus had been left without any means of subsistence was not accepted by the court as a justified reason for not returning to Zadar. It took the view that the applicant’s daughter could have sent her money. Therefore, the court concluded that the applicant’s reasons for not having lived in the flat were not justified.
26.  Following an appeal by the applicant, the judgment was quashed by the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) on 10 March 1993.
The County Court found that the court of first instance had not given due consideration to the applicant’s personal circumstances, namely her age and poor health and the fact that she had lost her pension and lived alone in Zadar. Furthermore, the applicant’s decision to prolong her stay in Rome should have been carefully assessed against the background of the circumstances at the material time, namely that Zadar had been exposed to daily shelling and had not had a regular supply of water or electricity, and that third parties had occupied the applicant’s flat.
The case was remitted to the first-instance court.
27.  In the resumed proceedings, on 18 January 1994 the Zadar Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the municipality and terminated the applicant’s specially protected tenancy. It observed that she had been absent from the flat for over six months without justified reason and repeated in substance the findings of the judgment of 9 October 1992.
28.  The applicant appealed. On 19 October 1994 the County Court reversed the first-instance judgment and dismissed the municipality’s claim. It found that the escalation of the war and the applicant’s personal circumstances justified her absence from the flat.
29.  On 10 April 1995 the Zadar Municipality lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).
30.  On 15 February 1996 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the County Court’s judgment and upheld the judgment of the Municipal Court. It found that the reasons submitted by the applicant for her absence from the flat were not justified. The relevant part of the Supreme Court’s judgment read as follows:
“During the aggression against Croatia, living conditions were the same for all citizens of Zadar and, as rightly submitted by the plaintiff, it is neither possible nor legitimate to separate the defendant’s case from the context of that aggression. To hold the contrary would mean assessing her case in isolation from all of the circumstances which characterised that time and determined the conduct of each individual.
Contrary to the appellate court, this Court, assessing in that context the defendant’s decision not to return to Zadar during the aggression but to stay in Italy, considers the non-use of the flat unjustified. The factual findings made in the case reveal that, in view of her state of health and the available travel connections, the defendant was able to come to Zadar; her health would not have deteriorated because of her stay in Zadar; and she could have taken care of herself. The assumption that she would have had to make a considerable mental and physical effort in order to provide for her basic living needs (all the citizens of Zadar who remained in the town, from the youngest to the oldest, were exposed to the same living conditions) does not justify her failure to return to Zadar and, accordingly, does not constitute a justified reason for the non-use of the flat.”
31.  On 8 November 1996 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). She claimed that her rights to respect for her home and property had been violated and that she had been deprived of her right to a fair hearing.
32.  On 5 November 1997 the Convention came into force in respect of Croatia.
33.  On 8 November 1999 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. It found that the Supreme Court had correctly applied the relevant legal provisions to the facts established by the lower courts when holding that the applicant’s absence from the flat for more than six months had been unjustified. The Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant’s constitutional rights had not been violated.